|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Races | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: This is almost like a creationist argument. Rather than answer the question, you claim the burden is on me because it contradicts your opinion. Your working definition of subspecies which you equate with "race" is idiosyncratic and can hardly be equated with a common view of "race". But since neither you nor Peter seem willing to state what this commonly accepted definition of race among the billions of humans on the planet that rubes such as sfs and myself seem to have missed there does not seem to be much point in continuing.
quote: Base on what? Why not species then? Or genus? Since the defnintions you have proposed and what you have written in your faq are so arbitrary one could give a single base change in cytochrome b between two individuals any taxanomic value one wishes.
quote: This is rather vague...what "race" is Colin Powell? Actually, my mother is spanish. My father American. On my mother's side there is moorish influence. My father is a mixture of Russian jew, German jew, and non-descript Welsh. What major "race" group am I...according to you I should instantly be able to identify my race in such a way that everyone else does...which sub-species am I?
quote: I would say it makes quite a bit of difference since you are claiming it as a precise biological concept that everyone should accept blindly and without question yet at the same time admit it is so arbitrary that anyone can define the concept as they choose...how useful is that?
quote: Ah yes, good debating tactic...claim that the opposition is ignorant and has yet to recognize your brilliance. Fine, you find the consensus agreement on what species are among evolutionary biologists...I am sure you will define it as whatever you think it is...however, in reality species as a concept is also highly controversial and debated...and it does matter for a variety of reasons including how conservation efforts are focused...this thread shows race is an order of magnitude worse...Feel free to ignore it or dismiss it with another vague statement. [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: This does not deal with interbreeding...if you have 20% West African, you have 80% something else...what "race" are you? Then you switch within the post from clear sub-saharan African to West African. Many of these "interbred" people have themselves had children who are even more mixed in ancestry i.e. from people of different geographical origin. If you have alleles that are a mix from multiple different populations, you will not be able to identify the "race" of the individual. Within geographical groups the mixing will form a normal distribution with those living in proximity more closely related...so which alleles do you pick as "sub-saharan"? I did not mean to completely lump you together with Too Tired as your reasons for not having defined "race" are different. I think you yourself are not entirely sure where to draw the line. Too Tired thinks that race is self evident, that billions of people agree with anything he says, that quoting Steve O'Brien is evidence, and that anyone who disagrees is stupid. I do not consider your arguments or reasoning to be equivalent...just that niether of you has given a clear definition of what "race" means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
This conversation is becoming highly uninteresting as you are both consistently condescending and evasive. Hopefully this will change..if not, no loss for me either.
quote: Please then elaborate on what you understand to be a "reasonable" definition of the term race. I have asked you several times. Summarize your faq because even there it is not clear. I would not say the biological species concept is necessarily the most common and given it is itself hotly debated, I doubt you could form a consensus among scientists. So yes, I am incapable of drawing subspecies, species, race distinctions because I have seen EVERY one of those terms used interchangebly by you, by Peter, and in the scientific and lay literature.
quote: I don't see how you make the logical leap that if one does not accept "race" (however one defines it) one must instantly jump to a higher taxanomic division. In fact, almost everyone except for you and Peter has argued exactly the opposite. While there may be variation that correlates with geography, the level of admixture among human populations suggests exactly the opposite of growing differentiation among groups but of homogenization.
quote: Now this is the most interesting part of your post. The looseness of race is an issue. It is more variably defined than species or even sub-specis. I have not seen even here a consistent formulation of the concept either on the pro or con side. If a drug developer wishes to test a new product in clinical trials, is claiming that sub-saharans form a distinct group a true biological guide to the efficacy of the drugs? Does a loose concept of race help in any way? If the geographical distance does not correlate with the genetics of a group due to historical migration , invasion and other sources of admixture, then what? Though it is at some level a semantics issue, using historical terms that have multiple connotations is does not simplify biological study for those of us who are actually in the field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Yes, my poor education must be the issue...and while I break away from my duties as a practicing scientist to confirm your brilliance, maybe you should get out of your "armchair" and seek some knowledge yourself on the issue that you seem to hold so dear? Kaessmann H, Paabo S.The genetical history of humans and the great apes. J Intern Med. 2002 Jan;251(1):1-18 Paabo S.Genomics and society. The human genome and our view of ourselves. Science. 2001 Feb 16;291(5507):1219-20 Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Weiss G, Paabo S. Great ape DNA sequences reveal a reduced diversity and an expansion in humans.Nat Genet. 2001 Feb;27(2):155-6. Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Paabo S.Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees. Science. 1999 Nov 5;286(5442):1159-62. Kaessmann H, Heissig F, von Haeseler A, Paabo S. DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome.Nat Genet. 1999 May;22(1):78-81. Krings M, Salem AE, Bauer K, Geisert H, Malek AK, Chaix L, Simon C,mtDNA analysis of Nile River Valley populations: A genetic corridor or a barrier to migration? Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Apr;64(4):1166-76.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Neither was directed at you. Both posts were responses to Too Tired and the debate which is unfortunately evolving into a petty flame war that is being largely ignored by the rest of the forum participants. [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hello TT,
You are correct, Svante is no peach himself. I however, am not him. In any case, you conspiciously do not reference any of his or Wilson's work though both groups have published some of the most influential studies (whether correct or incorrect) on human and non-human primate molecular biology. Perhaps coincidentally because they are not advocates of "race"?
quote: I don't argue with Smith's definition but they are defining species as opposed to race. The Sci Am article could be looked at as yet another group that has yet another common view of race that does not fit your definition or your concept of race. However, race is an extremely maleable term. Here are several definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary...depending on which one you picked (except for the first) it would cover an enormous number of possible meanings for race. Main Entry: 3raceFunction: noun Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza Date: 1580 1 : a breeding stock of animals 2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics 3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type 4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition 5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength quote: I understand the point of your faq. I also claimed from the beginning that it is well written and I can say it is overall interesting proposition. I also do not disagree that there is variation among and within human populations. However, I do not agree that one can simply apply a maleable concept such as race which could mean anything from what a xenophobe considers race to be to the umpteen different definitions scientists provide and expect it to serve any purpose but to make communication different biologists near impossible. Imagine if every single group working on p53 just gave it some name according to the different genes it effects in the various cell signalling pathways it is associated with? I think the appeal of a term such as phylogeographic subspecies is that it is at least conceptually more clear, has no long term history of use, no history of being used in other contexts, and is immediately applicable to non-humans. It can also be revised with ease since new catagories/races do not have to be devised as more genetic data is accumulated and associations based on morphology or other characteristics may or may not show genetic support.
quote: Confusion on their part or not, they are the ones who have to use the terms and concepts. Scientists for the most part try to use terms that are precise, clear, and that can be communicated and understood by other scientists. Laypeople may or may not be influenced by how scientists use the terms. Just saying that it is the worlds fault for not understanding "race" as a concept is not a particularly compelling reason to keep it as a term. Merely assigning it some other taxanomic value like sub-species is not necessarily helpful but at least then one has a slightly clearer framework to operate under...you seem to be advocating that yourself in your faq so I don't see why you are so resistant to such a concept. And I would hardly consider race to be conventional in science...as in this thread, there are fairly extreme pro and anti-race categorizers in the literature.
quote: I was actually thinking more in terms of pre planning for such an analysis. Since it is usually prohibitively expensive to do comprehensive testing of drugs during clinical phase trials, one has to pick the most relevant groups before doing the testing. I don't think that just saying european, Asian, or West African would get you the samples you need. There may be variation within populations which is far more relevant to your study and which race sweeps under an overly large and variable sized umbrella. there is also more genetic diversity in west Africa than you give credit Ellis JM, Mack SJ, Leke RF, Quakyi I, Johnson AH, Hurley CK.Diversity is demonstrated in class I HLA-A and HLA-B alleles in Cameroon, Africa: description of HLA-A*03012, *2612, *3006 and HLA-B*1403, *4016, *4703. Tissue Antigens. 2000 Oct;56(4):291-302. Hill AV, Allsopp CE, Kwiatkowski D, Taylor TE, Yates SN, Anstey NM, Wirima JJ, Brewster DR, McMichael AJ, Molyneux ME, et al. Extensive genetic diversity in the HLA class II region of Africans, with a focally predominant allele, DRB1*1304.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Mar 15;89(6):2277-81. Tishkoff SA, Verrelli BC.Patterns of human genetic diversity: implications for human evolutionary history and disease. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003;4:293-340. Review. I will conclude here by saying I am sorry that our debate got as heated as it did. I don't think we will be able to convince each other that the other sides position is correct, but I am sorry that it briefly headed in the direction of a flame war and for my contribution to that aspect of the debate. cheers,M
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024